Talk:Stephen Barrett - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 196.40.14.198 (talk) at 15:55, 10 March 2006 (→Two different matters). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:55, 10 March 2006 by 196.40.14.198 (talk) (→Two different matters)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Barrett's license to practice

Is there a source for the claim that Barrett isn't currently licensed to practice medicine? --Icarus 03:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously we need a source. This is not the first time Ive heard this, so there may be somthing to it more than POV by the anon user, but without a source, it needs a source. Stbalbach 04:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I say we leave it for a week or so to allow someone to add a source, and then remove it if it does not have a source at that point. If it's true, it can always be added back whenever someone does present a source. --Icarus 07:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I may remember wrong, but I think Barrett had said that he didn't renew his membership in his psychiatric council-ma-bob thing... I need to figure out what I'm thinking of Tyciol 08:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the article I posted, under oath Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. If this is verified, I think it should be part of this article. Levine2112 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The article you posted takes the text verbatim from www.healthfreedomlaw.com, the author of which doesn't provide a transcript of the trial. --CDN99 18:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a transcipt available? I can't find the article on healthfreedomlaw.com. It's kind of a sloppy site. Can you point me to the page where you saw this article verbatim? Levine2112 18:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just found this from another article:

'At trial, while on the stand, Barrett had to admit that he not only gave up his license in 1994, but that he was, in fact, not a board-certified psychiatrist, because he had flunked the examination that was required to receive certification. More significantly, under intense cross-examination, Barrett admitted that he did not pass the neurological portion of the exam.'

Levine2112 18:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Scroll down the main page at www.healthfreedomlaw.com to "breaking news!!!". Chiroweb also quotes from www.healthfreedomlaw.com in that article. --CDN99 19:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So what is the truth here? Did Barrett indeed fail his psychiatric board examinations as those articles claim he admitted on the stand? I don't want to post a lie to the article. But with several references now, does this become verifiable? Do courts often publish trial transcipts? Has Barrrett ever responded to these allegations about what he said on the stand? Levine2112 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Two different matters

Gentlemen, you're all mixing two very different matters together. This is confusing, so here they are:

1. Letting his license lapse when he retired.

This is standard practice for MDs. It's expensive to keep one's license to practice active. One has to pay very expensive malpractice insurance, dues, continuing education, etc. He will always be an MD. That's his education.

Early history:

During the mid-1970s, I began writing about what I found and gradually evolved into a medical writer and editor. As I did so, I gradually reduced my psychiatric work until 1993, when I retired so I could spend more time writing about my findings. The original committee, renamed Quackwatch in 1997, has evolved into an informal network of individuals who provide help when asked. FAQ

What is the status of your medical license?

In 1993, I decided to devote my full energy to investigating and writing about quackery and inactivated my Pennsylvania license. Since 1999, there has been an organized attempt to destroy my reputation by falsely describing my status as "de-licensed"-a derogatory term that means having one's licensed revoked for misconduct. I have committed no misconduct. I retired in good standing and can reactivate my license by paying the renewal fee. But since I no longer see patients, there is no reason to do so. I have filed libel suits against several of the people who orchestrated the campaign.

Tim Bolen's most blatant lie is the "de-licensed" claim. He has been confronted with it and yet continues to do it.

2. Never being Board Certified.

He has never claimed to be Board Certified. He was and is still an MD and a psychiatrist. Being "Board Certified" is nice, but far from all MDs, including psychiatrists, are Board Certified.

Barrett may claim it is "nice" to be board certified, but it is far more than 'nice.' It is a protection for patients and the public. By letting his state license lapse while still broadly being advertised as medical doctor also provides NO protection to the public. With Barrett actively going af..ter the licenses of those he disagrees with (such as medical doctors researching Multiple Chemical Sensitivity which Barrett claims doesn't exist) ... as well as his "credentialwatch.com" website ... his failure to protect the public is pure hypocrisy.

Barrett also claims that Quackwatch.com is as nonprofit, but the IRS has no record of this and no way to look at his non profit tax records. Where is the legal non profit, Quackwatch?

He still advertises NCAHF as a nonprofit, yet it is now defunct, suspended by the State of California after Barrett and NCAHF lost a high profile lawsuit, where Barrett was declared "biased, and unworthy of credibility."

3. Frequently Asked Questions about My Activities -- Stephen Barrett, M.D.

What got you interested in fighting quackery?
What promoted you to start the Quackwatch Web site?
What qualifies you to write on so many topics?
Do you yourself follow a healthy lifestyle?
What are your goals?
What is the status of your medical license?
What would you do if you were told you were terminally ill?
Additional information about me
Additional information about Quackwatch

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm

Why does Barrett use shills like "Will Ketcher" "Nanaweedkiller" and a disbarred attorney from NY, Mark Probert to harass those he has lost to in court?

Just ask

If you have any other matters that need answering, just ask. The answers usually exist, and I know the people who can provide them. Keep in mind that Barrett, the NCAHF, etc. are open about their activities. They have nothing to hide. The information is there if you know where to look. Even participation on the Healthfraud Discussion List requires using ones real name.

Regards, Paul -- Fyslee 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

On Sources

There is no factual reson to doubt the documents authenticity. Court records are not always made available online by the court, and any transcript made available from a third party could just as easily be discounted for the same reasons, its a burdon of proof that is extreme, Misplaced Pages is not original research, it reports on what others are saying and lets the reader decide. Stbalbach 20:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

A trial transcript is not "original research." In fact, the guideline on reliable sources specifically mentions trial transcripts as credible primary sources. By contrast, a press release issued by one side in a contentious court dispute is far from a reliable source. If a transcript is not available, and I can't imagine why it wouldn't be in this case, a neutral and uninvolved news article about the proceedings should be cited at the very least.

It's hardly extreme to ask for a citation from a work that doesn't happen to be online; people cite printed material all the time here. Don't be lazy! The clerk of courts of the civil division of the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas can be reached at (610) 782-3148. Ask for a transcript from case number 2002-C-1837 and I'm sure she'll be happy to help you out. --PHenry 21:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Getting a transcript costs money and time. I am curious, but not that much -- but perhaps the person who added the link would like to follow up with it. I've added a note to their talk page. Stbalbach 22:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"critical is positive"

"critical is positive" is your POV, please don't impose it on the article - I dont know about "imposing", your the one who is creating sections based on value judgement terms. Most articles dont do that. In any case, youve changed the word "positive" to the more neutral "Advocacy" which I can live with. --Stbalbach 13:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Many other articles dealing with controversial subjects have separate sections for external links. The descriptions vary, but they do exist as a common practice. You are using the word "positive" in a different sense than was intended, which is an unfair trick. I used it in the sense normally used in such cases - links positively oriented towards the subject of the article. The other links - labeled critical - are obviously critical of the subject. I changed the word (to a more awkward one) to hopefully avoid an editing war. -- Fyslee 17:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The word "positive" can imply a value judgement (opposite = "negative"). There's no "trick", seems positivly obvious to me, unless your casting negative light on the matter for other reasons. --Stbalbach 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can mean the opposite of negative, but I wrote "critical." They are simply descriptive words to identify the type of content. Some links are "positively" for Barrett, while the others are "critical" and against Barrett. My headings described quite accurately the two types of POV links. Accurate documentation is considered allowable.

Bolen's libelous publications (for which he is soon to appear in court) are not considered to even be close to an attempt at accuracy. They are clearly prejudiced and inflammatory paid spin doctoring. He is running interference for his employers - Hulda Clark, among others. He doesn't hesitate to deceive by repeating claims and accusations he knows to be falsehood. He has been confronted with them, but refuses to change. He knows they are lies, but continues to repeat them. So far he hasn't presented any evidence for his false claims. If you know of any evidence (he isn't producing it), I'd like to see it.

Here are some informative links about the libel situation:

A Response to Tim Bolen - Stephen Barrett, MD
Careless reporting by Tim Bolen - Stephen Barrett, MD
Full Canvas Jacket Award - Peter Bowditch
Tim Bolen the Defamer - Terry Polevoy, MD

Here's a picture of Bolen.

-- Fyslee 22:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Axes to grind

You seem to have an ax to grind with Bolen. --Stbalbach 04:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha! you can say that again. He has consistently libeled and attacked many of us, and without any proof at that. Here's just one of the most prominent of examples (I am named):

The Clark v. Barrett countersuit: Racketeering suit - a Cross Complaint to the Libel suit

The accusations against Barrett and some 30 others, myself included, is very long. Quackbusters consider the accusations to be fitting for a Mafia godfather:

Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Cross-Defendants have engaged in, but not limited to, the following illegal conduct and acts prior to the time of the filing of this Cross-Complaint:

Mail Fraud; Wire Fraud; Perjury; Subornation of Perjury; Extortion; Stalking; Terrorist threats; Assault; Filing false police reports; Illegal lobbying; Illegal influence of foreign government officials and/or agencies; Trespass; Invasion of Privacy; Web site tampering; Internet Spam; Investigation without license; Violation of Civil Rights & Free Speech; Interference with Right of Free Speech and Association.

That countersuit was conveniently withdrawn without ever coming to trial (but the accusations are still on the internet): Bogus "Anti-Quackbuster" Suit Withdrawn

Obviously having been accused of such crimes without a shred of evidence, and having the accusations published all over the internet, isn't a very pleasant experience, but then Bolen isn't interested in playing fair and has never claimed to be.

A follow-up "Malicious Prosecution" suit against Carlos Negrete, Hulda Clark's attorney, is pending:

How would *you* feel if I accused *you* of committing Mail Fraud; Wire Fraud; Perjury; Subornation of Perjury; Extortion; Stalking; Terrorist threats; Assault; Filing false police reports; Illegal lobbying; Illegal influence of foreign government officials and/or agencies; Trespass; Invasion of Privacy; Web site tampering; Internet Spam; Investigation without license; Violation of Civil Rights & Free Speech; Interference with Right of Free Speech and Association, and many more crimes?

That kind of lawsuit is a first class example of a SLAPP suit. Even on the face of it it's obvious they are trumped up charges, intended to provoke and intimidate, but not anywhere near the truth.

Can you now understand why I "have an ax to grind" with him? Before he personally threatened me for the first time back in 1999 (or 2000), I had only criticized Hulda Clark for her dubious methods. She employed him to defend her, and since his favorite mode is the attack mode (by his own admission), he promptly emailed me with personal threats. Nice guy! (not).

I'm just an ordinary PT in practice with my wife, also a PT. We're ordinary people with average incomes, two children, two dogs and three cats. I don't lie about people, threaten them, sue them, or otherwise engage in any devious activities. I do criticize quackery and fraud when I see it, and I can easily document it. Whatever I write can stand up in court. Bolen doesn't like that, and he knows I have enough stuff on him to win.

I'd really like to hear you tell me how *you* would feel if accused of such a long list of crimes. -- Fyslee 16:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess my concern is that your edits about Bolen are being made in Good Faith, a central foundation of Misplaced Pages. You obviously have an ax to grind with him and since you wrote almost the entire article on Tim Bolen (deleting almost everything that was there previously), it does raise the question that your edits were made in Good Faith to be neutral and fair. I found most of your edits of that article to emphasis negative stuff and not mention the positive (a "blackwash"). --Stbalbach 20:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think if you'll go back to the time I made my edits and additions, I reformatted it, but without eliminating anything essential. There wasn't much there at the time.

When you objected I wrote the following, but never got any reply:

Okay, what do you propose? I'm not sure what you're thinking about when you write "representative." Since I know Bolen's tactics and opinions quite well, and have been on the receiving end of his attacks, I've learned quite a bit about him, his websites, and his newsletters, which I receive. Maybe I'm too close to be able to do this properly, but my knowledge should be useful in some way.

In what way are the quotes "negative?" They are his true opinions. I feared that if I were to write about his motives and opinions myself, I'd be accused of painting a negative picture, so I chose to give him the word.

This article should describe the website and its purpose. Since it consists entirely of his newsletters, it's his opinions that become the subject matter for the article.

Please come with some suggestions. I'm open to dialogue.-- Fyslee 16:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I seriously would like to know what you mean. -- Fyslee 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well back then I worked on it for over 45 mins and then pressed the wrong button and lost it all and havent had the heart to go back since. --Stbalbach 00:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! What a bummer. I feel with you. -- Fyslee 11:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ack! I concur on the horribility of it all, that's happened to me many times on forums. A couple times on here but not so much. Generally with faulty things like that it's good to fall back on notepad, but when nothing happens for a while we fall back on the more conveniant way until something jarring occurs. Generally it's good for the larger changes, which is why modifying things with smaller changes is good, among other reasons Tyciol 08:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What Barrett is trying to do

Barrett is a controversial character, and we have to make sure the article does not read like a promotional piece for him. (Nor, obviously, should it read like an indictment of his qualifications and motivations.) There are several ways we can do this, but I think we need to state the controversy up front, list his credentials and awards, etc., in a neutral way, and then have a candid and neutral discussion of the controversy. --Leifern 20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a criticism section where such matters are already stated, with reference and links to very critical (and libelous) sites. What are you thinking of? --Fyslee 20:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Barrett thinks that his opponents' credit history is useful information to disclose, I have yet to see an article he's written that starts with an open mind to "alternative" therapies, and he's prone to suggest that osteopaths are probably lesser counterparts to medical doctors. Let's be clear here - what he practices is advocacy, and he's being disingenious by claiming it's all about exposing fraud and quackery. --Leifern 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and you are in your full right to have it. Naturally there are more sides to the question. Barrett does have strong viewpoints. Fortunately he's quite open about them, their background, their documentation, his sources, expenses, and funding (mostly his own pocket).

To avoid an unpleasant editing war here (I'm sure we both have better ways to use our time....;-), let's discuss important (which can be single words at times....) edits. We both have our POV, we (myself included!) just need to make sure that edits don't degenerate into editorializing. That article certainly should include discussion of criticisms, but they should be documented. Conspiracy theories and libel can't be allowed (IOW, Tim Bolen is a lousy source). --Fyslee 21:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the 'who watches the watchdogs' thing linked to? If not I'll locate a link to it, it was a good criticism of a couple articles. Even so, it doesn't really discount all of them. Any critiques Barret makes need to be confronted one by one. He does have a lot (time-consuming writing process eh...) so perhaps we can make a new page called 'barrett articles vs responses' or something along those lines? I actually mailed Barrett to invite him to come edit his wiki and stuff to be more accurate but he said he would prefer not to, which is okay I guess, since he's busy and he thinks it will just feed controversy and bring attention to guys like Bolen. Tyciol 06:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you referring to here - "Is the 'who watches the watchdogs' thing linked to?" Do you have a link to that? -- Fyslee 12:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I downloaded it once to read, I must have deleted it though. Trying to locate a link to it now. It might also be 'Who watches the watchmen'. I'll keep googling. By the way, did you know about this guy? http://www.stephenbarrett.com/ Apparently there's also a wine critic by the name :) Should we make a disambig link? Tyciol 20:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be appropriate if there was an article on him here at Misplaced Pages, otherwise unnecessary. -- Fyslee 22:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition of quackery

Barrett broadly defines "quackery" as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health"

Regarding the above statement, is that what he says? Health-care is the most over-promoted industry there is. If over-promotion is his criteria, it's all quackery. -- Stbalbach 21:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the whole statement from the article:

Barrett broadly defines "quackery" as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health," and he believes the word "fraud" should be "reserved only for situations in which deliberate deception is involved."

Try this: (1) Read the pages at those links, (2) understand them, (3) then discuss them. -- Fyslee 22:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, Barrett is being a little gentle in saying it has to be DELIBERATE deception. I honestly think that a lot of people out there in AltMed do believe in their pseudosciences and faith healing, and people should still be protected from them. In a lot of cases it's due to a fallicious ringmaster who knows, but in other times it can just be spontaneous misleading. It's pretty hard to find evidence that people know something is fake and they're marketing it, as they're usually very careful about it. Tyciol 17:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if he's being "gentle." He's basically saying that someone can be guilty of quackery even if they have the best of intentions, whereas they are guilty of fraud if they know that they're doing something wrong. You're right that it's impossible to know what motivations and knowledge people have when they make various claims, and that standard cuts all ways. I don't think this is the place to get into who should be protected against whom, except to note what Barrett thinks. --Leifern 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why the distinction between "quackery" and "fraud" is so important. One can more safely and accurately accuse someone of practicing quackery, than of practicing fraud (unless one has proof of evil intent). Quackery is practiced every day by well-meaning people,and they should not be treated as common criminals with evil intent. Misguided, but not evil.

That doesn't make the consequences of their actions any less dangerous, because they may still be the same deadly consequences for the victim. When Hulda Clark tells a real AIDS victim that she has healed their AIDS, they can then go home and infect others. It makes no difference to the victims if it's Hulda or someone who really believes her that makes that false claim, death can still be the result. Sticking to the charge of quackery is often the safest and most accurate course of action. -- Fyslee 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit of a digression from the article, but fine with me. As someone pointed out, if overpromotion in the field of health is the criterion, then one could certainly include a lot of conventional medicine. But I think we should make a distinction between people who promote "alternative" medicine as a complement to conventional medicine, and those who promote it as an alternative. What it all comes down to as far as I'm concerned is depriving patients of their right to informed consent. --Leifern 02:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a digression, but it's good to learn and understand by discussing things. Understanding Barrett's motivating beliefs helps to put things in perspective.

For Barrett, quackery is not limited to alternative medicine, as his articles and Quackwatch clearly reveal. Many MDs are listed as being guilty of advocating and practicing quackery. One could say that "quackery" is an equal opportunity definition - it applies just as well to laymen as to professionals, to educated as to uneducated, to true believers as to evil deceivers.

Of course "overpromotion" is not the only criteria, but an important one. He also includes this aspect on the "definitions" page:

Quackery entails the use of methods that are not scientifically accepted......"anything involving overpromotion in the field of health." This definition would include questionable ideas as well as questionable products and services, ......

Unproven methods are not necessarily quackery. Those consistent with established scientific concepts may be considered experimental. Legitimate researchers and practitioners do not promote unproven procedures in the marketplace but engage in responsible, properly-designed studies. Methods not compatible with established scientific concepts should be classified as nonsensical or disproven rather than experimental. -- Fyslee 22:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)